
FLM 

2015 

024458 






□□□□5021741 




% < vfvT*’ A • 


■A 0 

,• $ 0 *- 
*■'«'• •* a* 

v . ~ 

O 


V ^ * ** V a * .V-' 

<* • * A° 

«*- /-^L> % o°* .•*" 

+ 



O * njV <*» « 

*C> <0 V *•"% *> 




#: ' , *Oha**\« <1>* CV * ^'J ^ * 

t/ mv/ '***- ^ 

« aV^> * 



* * * n ^ ^ * 

#;1 A° 

Jf * • M'» *> 


0 # 1 


A*^ * 

W * 




p ^ c 


** ^ * 


<> *•* * * £ 

CT o 0 " « ♦ ^o 


** « ° ' V?> 

v * * * o- <T\ <9 

- "A c# •' ‘^EX '- «t. 

v^ » <-6 ^ 

* ,„v v 

4 


o * • 


v& • *- * * -t ^ ., 

+0' : *w£ftp;. ,1 br •imtiQ?*' **o 

• a5 ^ V*SMfr> >>°%. "*Syissh° 

°"° V?^ ^ *"‘ l * A? <$\ **»0° ^ O "i'c* 

° ^v> *QK* r$* A^ ♦ •/Awvk® ^ 

V 9 ® r Vv * 



» ,a\ V "V » 

4 ^ t#* ° 




• sSSv 


* c9^ 

* «/ ^ » 

♦ £* 4 <2. V «•* 

.. <, -...* ,6 V *o, ♦ 

# r'^,%'U -° v .‘j^",’*' °j a , 


« ,VA 
* ^ 






^°' 7 ^ 

^ ^ * 


w*V V*- 




^ e * A. 

** .....'V 

A* .Wfe,' C 

° ^ 

< 1 ^ o 

V* ... °’J- * 


V *«?v 7 » ,<v 

A > 


♦ *S 



V . i -.. %* 

\) 


1 • O 


* /. 


O m l 


cfi ^r, - 

* V ^A • 

4 rfy V ' 



o, T v 7 ;«* A 

0 ° .‘i 4 '> °o A* ,C^,*. ^ 

"bv* r 



• «£>. A v * fc 

: %. ^ 

* J>% o 


A° -.* 

. 0 ' « 0 * * * ^b 

C * K^ # ‘ # o 


0 

-^w *° ^ °* • 

M, ’•<■>' ^'•••••\/ \ ‘‘ 

. ** :«'■ r* -ImI- : 

°wW\\yY <'V ,v/ ^k J liSIr« * 


» • . * * A <\* * r o.»' 

j bv^ 


# «V»* 


^ ** ^ 

4 * • ** A A >/ 

Sjjrtol* *+ < 

*•- ofc "% a 


O m l 


• 

• -a.^ O * r\ 

~ ° * 0 ' <v ^ * # / i • a° 

■**. *♦ .**«“»-•- *■ 3 
W w **' e 

♦ / v T , A <* * 

4 ' ^ 9 j> ^ * * v ’ 4 * ^ ^ 


0’ "> 


* • 
4 ^ V 


o * A 



V .... 

(\> . 0 * 0 + **^-s 

C V/ 0 * - W- 



sj* A 


* V* A^ *- 

t ,J j» V » 

. A A. *„ 

,* v ^ *. 

s 4 A <\ "O 9 n 

J -4 ,^. 

o V . > 0 ^ 





♦ 6 ^' ? ^k>‘ # 

«* 6^ \ X 



> * 

O *• x ^A r - cmJ +*' o ^ 

'% *• '■ 

' - -^° . 

° ^ & * 

«* A^^<» o 

*.*’ A <b 

^ '* ^ o 4 

-• 





^ .0 ^ # # 

f AV » V 

c ^ A * ffim • ^ av *. 

r vv 



A : 

* «? ^ * 

o . » * <G V ^ 

r° V 4 < 

, < 5 ° .-A 5 W. ^ 
^ <y 






c !=> ^ : 

» «p ^ « 

,0 V \D ♦ 

aV Q*9 ** 

r 0 * ♦ O 

v ♦ c^sXtw^^. O 
% 
o 



y ♦ * * 


A • 


o 

* 'X ^ » 

‘ V s ^ 

iV . »■ ' « <? 

A* '~JT? 7 -Zr <L, 

^‘Xf^'^o 0 ,,\''‘.t.’ f 0 ^ -r >’^ 

- c» < 0 ^ s ’ _ + ^ A »» y# ®- c\ »v t 

^ A ♦ * **£> AT * f{(\S« /K° ^r> & * 

• <• ^ ^r» 

7 ^ v ^ Ay ^ * rf 

s % A <b> '° • 4 * AV ^ '* **" < v 'O • A ” 

’ l * * ft k 0 " ® # l < # 





^ A’ 

• V* 


* 'vX-X*. 
































MR. DAYID FISHER, OF OHIO, 


THE LOAN BILL, 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. S., 


February 9th, 1848. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 

1848 . 


C , 




U, ' . . • M\:: 




















; .. i‘ ; 


. 










. : ' r- ■ 




* ■ 




. 





















SPEECH. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under 
■consideration the Loan Bill, Mr. FISHER, of Ohio, said, 

Mr. Chairman: 

There is a bill now before the committee, authorizing the President of the 
United States to borrow eighteen millions five hundred thousand dollars. It 
becomes us all to inquire what is the cause of this difficulty, and of the Gov¬ 
ernment being involved to the extent that renders it necessary to ask for a 
loan of that amount. The people should know what brought about this state 
of things; whether we came into this condition by fair, just, and honorable 
means—a thing they never can learn from the President and his friends. My 
colleague, (Mr. Vinton,) the other day, showed clearly that it was the object 
of the Administration to conceal all the odious measures it contemplated from 
the people, who, as the sovereigns of the country, have a right to know the 
truth. He (Mr. V.) has shown that the Administration has over-estimated the 
income of the Government upon the one hand, and the expenditures upon the 
other; and by that means they have fallen short by the sum now asked for to defray 
the expenditures of the present fiscal year. So the people have this amount more 
to pay than they were told they would have the last session of Congress. And 
though we voted against a direct tax a few days since, we will have to come to 
it before this war debt can be extinguished; for I feel confident that no duty 
which can be laid upon imports will more than pay the ordinary expenses of 
the Government and the interest on the public debt, if the war is closed to¬ 
morrow. I must say, here in my place, (and I intend to speak plainly and 
candidly on this subject,) that it has been the policy of this Administration, 
from the commencement of this war to the present time, to keep the people in 
ignorance of the true causes which led to it, and of the real condition of this 
country as affected by the war. 

It is certainly a fact that cannot be concealed, that the present war cannot 
be justified by a statement of facts and fair argument. Consequently, the Pre¬ 
sident, in his messages, has been driven to the necessity of making statements 
that were utterly untrue. His advocates, also, are driven to the necessity 
either of abandoning him, or of supporting him in his false position. And it is 
to be regretted that they have selected the latter alternative; their premises 
being false, they cannot be sustained by unsophisticated truth. Hence, if sus¬ 
tained at all, it must be done by assertions which have no foundation in truth, 
or fallacious arguments which are foreign to the subject. This may, indeed, 
seem to some to be a strong position; but I hope to make it good before my 
hour expires. 

It will be impossible for me to trace out all the untrue statements, in the 
short time allotted me, that have been made by the President and his advo¬ 
cates. When I say that their statements are untrue, I mean that they are so 
in the abstract, and do not wish to be understood as saying that they have ac¬ 
tually lied, for I cannot enter into their motives; they may have done it all 
through ignorance, for what I know. But whether ignorantly or wilfully, the 
effect is the same on the community, and should be exposed. But they have the 
means of knowing better, and therefore it is their duty to do it; and wherever 
knowledge is a duty , ignorance is a crime. Whatever it is a man’s duty to 
know, he does know, in the estimation both of the laws of God and man, and. 
consequently is held responsible for the same. The Administration and its 
advocates have placed themselves in a position unenviable indeed. Their 
statements, their arguments, their assertions, with regard to the commence¬ 
ment and conduct of this war, will go down to future generations, contradicted 
by the public record and the history of the country. 



4 


It is my design, at present, to direct my attention to the subject of the war, 
though, perhaps, this subject has been sufficiently discussed, and I do not ex¬ 
pect to present anything entirely new to this committee. But every man has 
his own peculiar manner of presenting facts and arguments; and as there have 
already been copious quotations made from public authorized documents, over 
and over again, on this side of the House, which remain uncontradicted by the 
opposite party, and will forever remain so, going to prove every position I shall 
assume, I think I can economize time by a mere statement of well-known facts,, 
without stopping to read those quotations over again. But, at the same time, 
having all the documents before me to prove every fact I shall state, the proof 
shall be forthcoming if any gentleman sees proper to contradict my statements, 
and call my attention to them. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in order to argue any question fairly, it is absolutely 
necessary, in the outset, in order that their arguments might be directed to the 
points at issue, for the opposing parties to ascertain what is the real difference 
between them, and then direct their arguments accordingly. What, then, is 
the difference between the parties in regard to this war? The President and 
his party assume that the war is just on our part—commenced by the act of 
Mexico; that the Mexicans shed the first blood—shed American blood upon 
American soil; that they struck the first blow, &c. Now, I say, without fear 
of successful contradiction, that not one single assertion made here is true, 
nor can they be proven. They are mere assertions; and as an offset I here 
assert , that they are not true; and my assertions are as good as theirs, until they 
prove to the contrary, which I am sure they will never do. Their assertions 
being affirmative, the burthen of proof of course devolves on them. But their 
repeated attempts and failures but too clearly prove that their assertions are 
without foundation. Now, if all, or one single one, of the four last statements 
can be proven, then will I admit the truth of the first one. Prove that the war 
was commenced by the act of Mexico, that they shed the first blood—shed 
American blood upon American soil—or that they struck the first blow, and I 
will admit that the war was just on our part. Not one single particle of evi¬ 
dence has been or can be produced, from Gen. Taylor’s despatches to our Gov¬ 
ernment, or from any other public document, that the Mexicans struck the first 
blow; or that they commenced hostilities in the affair with Captain Thornton, 
upon which the declaration “that war exists by the act of Mexico” was found¬ 
ed. Gen. Taylor, in his despatch upon that subject, says, that Thornton’s 
command “became engaged with a very large force of the enemy, and after a 
short affair, in which some sixteen were killed and wounded, appear to have 
been surrounded, and compelled to surrender.” 

Now, there is just as much evidence, in this account of the engagement, that 
the Americans commenced, as there is that the Mexicans did. But upon this, 
and this alone, all the declarations made by the President and his advocates, 
that “Mexico struck the first blow, and that war exists by her act,” are found¬ 
ed. But Capt. Thornton himself said, after his release, that the “Mexicans 
were drawn up in line of battle, and he charged upon them.” Now, this at 
once proves all the statements of the President, upon this point, to be utterly 
untrue. 

But, “American blood was shed upon American soil.” That “American 
blood was shed” is true; but that it was “shed upon American soil” is not 
true. There has not been a single hostile Mexican foot placed, nor one drop 
of American blood shed, on American soil, since the annexation of Texas, if 
ever; and I challenge proof to the contrary. The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. McLane) said, the other day, that he considered the war “una¬ 
voidable on our part.” Unavoidable! Was the annexation of Texas un¬ 
avoidable? Was the marching of our army to the Rio Grande, amongst, the 
Mexican citizens—the blockading that river, the pointing of our guns into 


5 


Matamoras, and the charge made by Capt. Thornton upon the Mexicans, all 
unavoidable on our part? It appears to me that no candid man can say, or even 
think so. And I am sure no candid man will say that the present war would 
have existed, if we had not done those things? And that the annexation of 
Texas was the remote, and the marching of our army to the Rio Grande the 
immediate, cause of the war, no one can dispute. 

But gentlemen on the opposite side, in their extreme anxiety to defend the 
President, place themselves in rather a ludicrous position. They contend that 
the war is exceedingly popular with the people, and becoming more so every 
day; and yet they resort to every subterfuge to shift the responsibility upon 
somebody else, and even to try to convince the people that the Whigs are re¬ 
sponsible for it all! Some, to save the President from the odium justly due to 
him for commencing the war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally, say that the 
annexation of Texas was the cause of the war; hence, the Congress that an¬ 
nexed her, and John Tyler, are responsible. Others say—No; we admit that the 
march of our army to the Rio Grande was the cause of the war, and that this 
was done by the order of the President; but then, but then—What? Why, 
Gen. Taylor recommended it; hence he is responsible. But when gentlemen 
are driven from all these positions, as a last resort they unite and say, that the 
'territory lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande belonged to Texas, and, 
therefore the President had a right to order the army there, to defend our, own 
territory. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, as the President and his friends have thus far failed, 
and I know must forever fail, to prove that this territory did belong to Texas, 
it may not be amiss for me to show that it did not. Where there are so many 
conflicting statements and irreconcileable assertions, it becomes necessary for 
us to ascertain whether there is not some position, or ground, upon which all 
parties agree, as a basis from which to argue. Well, this ground I find here. 

All parties agree that the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande 
did once indisputably belong to Mexico. It has, too, been admitted here, and 
not disputed, that originally Texas did not extend further west than the Nueces 
river, and that the country west, up to the Rio Grande, belonged to the depart¬ 
ments of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and New Mexico. This all being true, I ask, 
when and how did Texas subsequently become the owner of that territory? 
In answer to this, it has been said, by the President and his friends, that Lou¬ 
isiana once extended to the Rio Grande. Well, what then? Does it follow, 
as a matter of course, that therefore Texas did, too? Louisiana once extended 
to St. Louis, and included it; and therefore St. Louis is now in Texas! But 
this position, I believe, is pretty much abandoned by the opposite party. I 
shall therefore pursue it no further. 

But, says the opposite party, Santa Anna once, while a prisoner, made a bar¬ 
gain with the Texans that, if they would release him, he would give them the 
country up to the Rio Grande! If Mr. Polk was now in the war with Mexico, 
and should be taken prisoner, could he barter away a part of two or three of 
our States for his release? If he could, I really think it would be a bad bar¬ 
gain for the United States. Satan proposed to our Saviour on the mount, if he 
would fall down and worship him, he would give him all the kingdoms of the 
world; while, at the same time, the poor devil did not own one foot of land. 
And so it was with Santa Anna. He did not own one foot of land in all that 
territory. This argument is also nearly abandoned by the opposite side of the 
House. 

Thus, then, the only remaining claim of Texas that is urged is based upon 
her own declaration. The Texan Congress, in December, 1836, declared— 
yes, declared —that the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, was their 
western boundary; and, therefore, she owns all that country. Well, that is a 
pretty easy way to get land. If a mere declaration will give title to land, 


6 


what is there to prevent any gentleman upon this floor from having as much? 
land as he wants? If you desire your neighbor’s farm that you sold to him, 
just declare that some creek or river (I suppose no other boundary would do) is 
your boundary on the other side of his farm. And if your neighbor is unwil¬ 
ling to give up his farm, just enter a suit of ejectment against him, and em¬ 
ploy Mr. Polk, or some of the learned gentlemen who advocate his cause, to 
defend your claim, and they will demonstrate to any court that a mere declara¬ 
tion is a far better title to land for you than your neighbor’s, even if he proves 
that he bought it ol you, and paid for it, and has occupied it for thirty years, 
and for that long has declared it to be his, and every body else has acknow¬ 
ledged his right. 

Now, shocking as this may appear to the common sense of every man, yet 
it is a parallel case to the one we have in hand. The territory of which I am 
speaking is said once to have belonged to us. If so, we sold it to Mexico for 
Florida. She bought it, and paid us for it, and has occupied and declared it to be 
hers for near thirty years, and no one disputed her title from 1819 until 1836, 
when Texas declared it was hers. And now the President of the United 
States, in his public messages, and his advocates in their speeches, proclaim 
to the world that it is our own soil, that it is American soil, &c., without any 
other title than the declared title of Texas. The admitted ownership and occu¬ 
pation of Mexico have to give place to the declaration of Texas, and thousands 
of their citizens killed for refusing to give it up. And Mr. Polk is so certain 
that this “declared” title is so “clear and unquestionable,” that, rather than our 
own country should be disgraced by giving it up, he will spend twenty thou¬ 
sand of the lives of our own countrymen and two hundred millions of money. 

Now, as Mexico did own that territory beyond doubt, Texas could have got 
it from her in but one of two ways—by conquest or treaty. Did Texas ever 
conquer it? If so, when? She declared it was hers in 1836. Then she must 
have conquered it before that time, or the declaration was not true. Then how 
came it to pass that, nine years afterward, when our army marched into that 
country, it was found settled by citizens of Mexico, obedient to her laws, and 
Texas not attempting to exercise jurisdiction over them? No one pretends h> 
say that Texas ever got this country by a fair treaty. So, if she did not get 
it by one of these two ways, I am sure she never got it at all. 

Again: If Texas had a right to any part of the country on the Rio Grande, 
she had a right to the whole, from the mouth to the source, including all the 
Santa Fe country, for the same title is set up to all that there is to a part. 

But the President told us, in his annual message of 1846, that the Congress 
of Texas had extended their civil and political jurisdiction over the country to 
the Rio Grande; that they organized counties, established courts of justice, a 
custom-house, post offices and post roads, a land office, &c., &c. Who be¬ 
lieves all this? There is not a word of truth in it, only so far as Corpus Christi 
is concerned, where not more than ten or a dozen familes resided. All the 
other citizens, amounting to some thirty thousand, who resided in that coun¬ 
try, always had been, and still were, under the jurisdiction of Mexico. 

Strange as it may appear, in the same message that the President tells us that 
Texas extended her jurisdiction over the country up to the Rio Grande, from 
its mouth to its source, he says: “The province of New Mexico, with Santa 
Fe, its capital, has been captured, and that we had acquired military posses¬ 
sion of it.” What? The country captured where Texas had her custom¬ 
house, her post offices and her post roads, her courts of justice, and exercised 
jurisdiction, civil and political! Now, these assertions of the President are 
just as true as the declaration that the Rio Grande was the boundary of Texas, 
and the declaration that “war exists by the act of Mexico.” 

But, we are asked, where, then, is the true boundary of Texas? This ques¬ 
tion was fully and fairly answered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ste- 


7 


phens) a day or two since. He said: “Her boundary extended just so far as 
her revolution successfully extended, and no farther. Her title to any portion 
of the territory depended solely upon the right of revolution, ” &c. This is, 
evidently, a correct view of the subject; and had the people on the Rio Grande 
revolutionized with Texas, the boundary of revolutionary Texas would have been 
the Rio Grande. But they did not, as every gentleman upon this floor well knows. 

Again: I asserted, in the outset, that misstatements of facts were constantly 
resorted to in support of this war. I hope the committee will indulge me for 
a few moments till I present a few instances. In the other end of the Capitol the 
following was asserted by Mr. R. Johnson, of Md., and is now in print before me: 

“ Now, what are the clear and indisputable facts ? The United States had received the Re¬ 
public of Texas into the Union without antecedently defining her boundaries, and under a con¬ 
stitution which reiterated what had been, as far back as 1836 , a part of her original constitution 
as an independent Republic—that the Rio Grande, from its source to its mouth, was her south¬ 
western boundary.” 

Now, I have but one single objection to all this, and that is, that there is not 
one word of truth in it. Neither the constitution of the Republic of Texas, nor 
that of the State of Texas, says one single word about the Rio Grande being 
the boundary. The constitutions of both are before me; any gentleman is at 
liberty to examine them now , and convict me if I am in error. But upon these 
erroneous statements the gentleman founds a lengthy argument that the terri¬ 
tory is ours, and we were bound to defend it up to that river. 

Again, he says, in the same speech: “From 1843 no Mexican soldier ever 
crossed the river, (Rio Grande,) and no civil officer of Mexico ever exercised 
jurisdiction over it. ” Now, like the first, this has not a particle of truth in it, 
as I shall show presently. Precisely the reverse is true. No Texan soldier, 
after 1843 was ever on that river, and no Texas civil officer ever exercised 
jurisdiction over that country. If there were any, they certainly can be named 
or pointed out, by our opponents. 

The gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. McLane,) said the other day that 
Texas, “after driving the Mexican armies beyond the Rio Grande, and at once 
organizing a government, declared that river to be their western boundary; 
and, from that time to the present, maintained complete and undisturbed pos¬ 
session of the soil west to the Rio Grande!” Now, to speak plainly, this asser¬ 
tion has not the least foundation in truth. Why do not gentlemen, who make 
such statements, point out some officer, civil or military, or even a single 
Texan private family, that resided on or within one hundred miles of the Rio 
Grande ? To this question there is but one true answer, and that is because 
they can’t do it. No, but we must take their mere ipse dixit for it, in place of 
proof against the public record—their own former acknowledgments, and the 
history of the country. How do these assertions agree with the President’s 
declaration that our army captured Santa Fe, a place which every body knows 
is far this side of the Rio Grande, and never had been interrupted by Texas? 

After the annexation of Texas Mr. Donelson, our charge d’affaires in that 
State, says, to Mr. Buchanan, our Secretary of State: “Above the point on the 
Rio Grande, where it enters New Mexico, there has been no occupancy by 
Texas; and it is obvious, so far as that region is concerned, no military move¬ 
ment could have taken it out of the category in which it is left by the terms of 
our joint resolution.” 

In the same despatch he again says: “The proclamation of a truce between 
the two nations (Texas and Mexico) left Mexico in possession of the east 
bank of the Rio Grande.” And in a letter of June 30th, after annexation, he 
sqys again: “Corpus Christi is said to be as healthy as Pensacola, a convenient 
place for supplies, and is the most western point now occupied by Texas.” 
And I now assert, arM challenge proof to the contrary, that, besides some ten 
or a dozen families at Corpus Christy there was not another family lived west 


8 


of the Nueces that was under the jurisdiction of Texas. I know it has been 
said that San Patricio was on the west side of that river, but such is not the 
fact, for it is on the east side. 

The President says, too, in his annual message of 1845, when our ajmy was 
at Corpus Christi: “I therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, 
to concentrate a sufficient military force on the western frontier of Texas.” 

Again, in the same message, he says: “After our army and navy had re¬ 
mained on the frontier and coasts of Mexico for many weeks, without any hos¬ 
tile movement on her part,” &c. The Secretary of War also wrote a letter to 
General Taylor, on the 8th July, 1845, thus: “Mexico has some military es¬ 
tablishments on the east side of the Rio Grande, which are, and for some time 
have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops,” &c. 

General Taylor, in his despatch of February 26th, 1846, to this Government, 
after stating that he had represented to the Mexicans that his movement to the 
Rio Grande would not be of a hostile nature, says: “The same views were 
impressed upon the Mexican custom-house officer at Brasos Santiago, by Captain 
Hardie.” General Taylor also informed our Government that he was met by 
a large force of Mexicans at the Little Colorado, and that, on his approach to 
Point Isabel, the Mexicans fired the town and fled. 

What, now, becomes of the assertions of the gentleman from Maryland, and 
all other assertions of a kindred nature? They are here positively contradicted 
by Mr. Polk, the Secretary of War, Mr. Donelson, and General Taylor. Now, 
take your choice whom you will believe. 

But, as I have shown, that whilst our army was at Corpus Christi, Mr. Polk 
said they were on the western frontier of Texas, and on the eastern frontier of 
Mexico, and that no hostile movement was made by the latter. And then, in 
a little more than one month after this statement, he ordered our army to ad¬ 
vance 150 miles west to the Rio Grande, and of course that distance into the 
Mexican territory, according to his own showing. Well, the army marched 
according to orders, they threw up breastworks opposite Matamoras, pointed 
their guns into that city, blockaded the mouth of the river, and General Taylor 
then wrote to our Government that this would “compel the Mexicans either to 
withdraw their army from Matamoras, where it could not subsist, or to assume 
the offensive on this side of the river.” In other words, either retreat, starve, 
or come over and fight us. In addition to this, in a despatch dated April 23, 
one day before the affair with Captain Thornton, General Taylor says: “A few 
days since he sent Lieutenants Dobbins and Porter to scour the country, and 
that Porter, at the head of his own detachment, surprised a Mexican camp, 
drove away the men, and took possession of their horses;” and that in this 
affair Porter and another man (he had no doubt) were killed. Then, on the 
24th, the affair took place with Capt. Thornton, of which I have before spoken, 
which made the President proclaim that “American blood was shed upon Ame¬ 
rican soil,” 150 miles west of where he had a month before said “was the western 
frontier of^exas!” This is, now, an incontrovertible account of the causes and 
commencement of the war, which the President said, and Congress declared , 
“exists by the act of Mexico.” It is by no means agreeable to me to place my 
own Government in a wrong position, neither will I do it. But I will place the 
facts before you and the country, and if the Government has placed itself in 
that position I can’t help it, neither need it look for my feeble support in that 
wrong position. The President makes a difference, between the people of 
Mexico and the government, and says, in his last annual message: “Ear¬ 
ly measures were adopted to conciliate, as far as a state of war would per¬ 
mit, the mass of the Mexican population; to convince them that the war was 
waged not against the peaceful inhabitants of Mexico, but against their faithless 
Government.” So what I say is not against my country, nor the mass of the 
American population, or the people, but against my “faithless Government.” 



9 


The country I believe is right upon the subject of this war; and it will be seen 
in due time, notwithstanding the unjust and dishonest attempts of its faithless 
Government to place it in the false position it has placed itself. 

I go for my country by going against this pernicious war, because it is against 
my country—both against its honor and interest. For, notwithstanding our 
many victories, every Mexican we have slain has not only cost us the life of 
one of our own citizens, but at least ten thousand dollars per head beside. But 
more of this hereafter. 

I think I have now established the following facts; first, that Texas did once 
belong to Mexico; that she rebelled, and a few families on the other side of the 
Nueces at Corpus Christi rebelled with her, and thereby became a part of the 
Republic of Texas. Second. That the people on the Rio Grande, from its 
mouth to its source, never did rebel, never was conquered, nor did Texas ever 
exercise jurisdiction over them. Third. That, nine years after the declaration 
of Texan independence, they were found obedient citizens to the Mexican 
Government and country, wherein they were born, by the army ot the United 
States, and conquered—a thing which Texas had failed to do. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, suffer me to examine for a few moments if the princi¬ 
ples sought to be established by the Administration, and its advocates, would 
not subvert all former laws and principles, and even common sense, and finally 
end in the ruin of our own Government. I will now illustrate, by supposing a 
case, which no gentleman will dispute, being analogous and exactly in point. 
The Sabine river is now the boundary between the State of Texas and Louisia¬ 
na, Arkansas, and Missouri, as the Nueces river was between Texas and Ta- 
maulipas, Coahuila, and New Mexico. Suppose Texas were now to rebel against 
the United States, as she did against Mexico, and a few families in Louisiana, 
on the east side of the Sabine, were to rebel with her, and she were to declare 
her independence, and would also declare that the Mississippi river, from its 
mouth to its source, was her eastern boundary, and at the end of nine years 
would become annexed to Mexico, and Mexico would send an army, first to the 
east side of the Sabine, and from thence to the Mississippi river opposite New 
Orleans, amongst the peaceable inhabitants of Louisiana, and erect their batte¬ 
ries and point their guns over into New Orleans; and further, would blockade 
the Mississippi river, so as to compel our forces that might be in New Orleans 
either to retreat, stay there and starve, or cross over and fight them. Would 
this be an aggression, or cause of w r ar, or not, on the part of Mexico? 

Mr. Brown, of Virginia, inquired whether the Rio Grande was not blockaded 
by General Taylor on his own authority? 

I am establishing the fact and its inevitable consequences, and that is suffi¬ 
cient for this portion of my argument; for, by whomsoever the Rio Grande was 
blockaded, the President subsequently sanctioned and approved it. The act 
was the same aggressive act, whether done by the President or by Gen. Taylor. 
My purpose is, by this illustration, to ascertain whether the gentleman opposite 
would consider it an aggressive act for a Mexican general to blockade the Mis¬ 
sissippi river, and not aggressive for the American general to blockade the Rio 
■Grande. If you say it would not, I ask why it would not; the cases are analo¬ 
gous. But the President and his advocates, if consistent, would say, that there 
was no aggression on the part of Mexico in all this; that the Mexican army on¬ 
ly came into their own territory to defend it; that they had a just right to block¬ 
ade the river, and that our forces must not cross over to the other side, for the 
Mexicans might attack them, and, per chance, our forces might kill some of 
them, and that would be shedding Mexican blood upon Mexican soil, and war 
would then “ exist by the act of the United States.” Mr. Polk, according to 
his own principles, would then order our army back from New Orleans to keep 
them from starving, instead of going over to defend his countrymen ! And if the 
Whigs were then to dispute the justice of such a course in Mexico, as they 


10 


surely would, that it was an invasion of our territory, a just cause of war, &c. ? 
we, of course, would be answered, that we were only a set of Mexican Whigs, 
and traitors to our country. And Mr. Polk would come out in a long message, 
and prove conclusively, that all that portion of Louisiana west of the Mississippi, 
with Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, and a large portion of Wisconsin, belonged to 
Texas. And to prove it, he would tell us that a half dozen families lived in 
Louisiana east of the Sabine, who rebelled with Texas, and that they had a post 
office and a custom house there, and sent a member to the convention that de¬ 
clared the Mississippi was their eastern boundary. And further, that all that 
country once belonged to Louisiana, and so did Texas, and he was once taken 
prisoner by the Texans, and he told them if they would let him go, they might 
have all that country. And, finally, the Congress of Texas declared, nine 
years before, that the Mississippi, from its mouth to its source, was their boun¬ 
dary, and therefore it belongs to them; and, if we dispute it, the Mexicans have 
a just right to thrash us, and make us pay all the expenses they are at while 
doing it. And if we have not the money to pay them, it is just that they should 
take the remainder of Louisiana, with Alabama and Florida. 

This is now a fair picture of the doctrine advocated by the President and his 
party; and, I think, all will join with me in saying, that the establishment of 
such principles would be subversive of all law, reason, and common sense, and 
would prove destructive of our own Government. And while we are advocat¬ 
ing our right to practise such abominable outrages upon the rights of others, we 
are advocating the right of others to practise them upon us. He who heads a 
mob to kill and rob his neighbor, by that act, authorizes his neighbor to kill and 
rob him upon the same principle. So in the case before us. All the out¬ 
rages we have committed upon Mexico and all the false assertions and 
arguments used by the Administration and its supporters to justify them, are 
of equal force and validity in favor of other nations and states against us; and, 
if established as correct, will prove destructive of our own Government and' 
Union. South Carolina, in the event of successful nullification, might thus 
have claimed to the Potomac, or wherever el-se she pleased; and because she 
claimed it, according to the doctrine sought to be established, she would have 
been entitled to it. Nor would it stop with nations or states; it would descend 
to private life; the only tenure by which an honest man would hold his land, or 
other property, would be the will of his dishonest and thieving neighbor. Such 
would be the end of the principles sought to be established by the Administra¬ 
tion, and it ought to be opposed by every lover of justice, and by every honest, 
upright, true patriot. 

Again, Mr. Chairman. The President, in order to cover up and conceal all 
these enormities from the people, has presented the Mexican robberies and out¬ 
rages upon some of our citizens, in years gone by, in exaggerated and glowing 
colors, as a justification of the present war. Well, sir, this demonstrates the 
doctrine for which I have been contending, the President himself being witness. 
Because Mexico robbed us, he therefore thinks it just and right to rob her, there¬ 
by placing himself in the same category of robbers with Mexico, and so justifies 
the right to rob. I do not justify Mexico in robbing our citizens; if I did, I 
would justify the President in robbing her, and so justify other nations in rob¬ 
bing us also. But, the truth is, the Mexican spoliations upon our citizens had 
been, in part, and the balance were, in progress of peaceful negotiations. A 
part had already been paid, and all would have been before this "time, had not 
the President acted towards Mexico as the silly man in the fable did with his 
goose, which laid a golden egg every day. In order to obtain all the eggs at 
once, he ripped open the goose, and thereby lost eggs, goose and all. But how 
these acts of Mexico prove that she commenced the war, is beyond my com¬ 
prehension. For, to say the least of it, it is very bad logic to say that Mexico 
robbed some of our citizens twenty years ago, and therefore in 1846 she invaded 


11 


our territory and commenced the war. But I look upon this as an admission by 
the President that he commenced the war; for to say that she committed spo¬ 
liations upon our citizens, and therefore we commenced the war, would be much, 
better logic. 

Again, the rejection of Mr. Slidell is also urged in justification of the war. 
But this, like the other, if it prove any thing, proves that we commenced the 
war, because they rejected him. For to say that, because she rejected him, 
she therefore commenced the war, is the height of folly. Much has been said 
by the President about Mexico rejecting Mr. Slidell, after agreeing to receive 
him. Now, the truth is, in that case Mexico did not agree to do any thing but 
what she said to the last she would do. She agreed to receive a commissioner 
to settle the boundary, and for this she contended to the vey last. Mr. Polk also 
agreed to send a commissioner; but, instead of doing this, he sent an envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to reside near the government of 
Mexico; as if there were no difficulty between the two governments. Mexico 
refused to receive him in that character, and insisted on a commissioner. But 
Mr. Polk, rather than do it, sent our army into their territory—Mr. Buchanan 
says, “in anticipation of Mr. Slidell’s rejection.” But, after Mr. Polk had 
accomplished his object—had got into a war, and thousands of lives were lost 
—then he could send a commissioner , instead of an envoy extraordinary. Why 
did he not do this at first? Just because he was afraid they would settle the 
difficulty without glorifying his administration by a war. I certainly believe 
that Mr. Slidell was sent to Mexico in that character on purpose that he should 
be rejected; and I feel confident that any one who will trace the proceedings 
of the President, will come to the same conclusion. When our army was at 
Corpus Christi, and was said by Gen. Taylor to be in a proper position to defend 
Texas, and all was calm and tranquil, the President, through the Secretary of 
War, would urge upon Gen. Taylor the necessity of more troops—that the 
enemy was collecting forces to make an attack upon him. The General, on 
more than one occasion, told him that it w T as all a mistake—that no warlike 
demonstrations were being made by the enemy—that no troops were collecting, 
but all was quiet on the Rio Grande: and this, too, w r as done up to the very 
time Gen. Taylor was ordered to march, and even for months afterwards. 
Texas, nor none of her citizens, asked for any further protection than they had, 
while our army was at Corpus Christi. It is therefore a folly to talk about our 
army marching to the Rio Grande to protect Texas, for it is not true; that was 
not the object; the object was to bring on a war, and this was accomplished. 

The facts and arguments which I have now presented, with others of a kin¬ 
dred nature, have long since convinced me of the truth of the resolution we 
some time since adopted, and for which I voted with a clear conscience, and 
will again, if opportunity serves, viz: “That this war was unnecessarily and 
unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States.” Unnecessa¬ 
rily begun, because the honor and interest of the country did not demand it; 
unconstitutionally begun, because the President began it, by invading the terri¬ 
tory of a neighboring nation, with whom, he said, we were at peace; while his 
constitutional rights are restricted to u repelling invasion and suppressing insur¬ 
rection.” Whether I have succeeded in bringing any one else to the same 
conclusion at which I have arrived, I will leave to future developments. 

Another thing, Mr. Chairman: Ever since the commencement of the war, 
the President has, upon all occasions, boasted of the liberal and honorable terms 
of peace he proposed to Mexico, and told us that Mexico would not accept 
terms of peace. But who can tell whether the terms proposed by the Presi¬ 
dent were liberal and just terms, or not? We have, by resolution, asked him 
what those liberal terms were, that we might judge for ourselves, of which he 
so much boasted; but he answers us that we have no right to know—that it is 
inconsistent with the public interest for us to know. I, for one, certainly have 


12 


not sufficient confidence, either in his judgment or word, to take for granted 
that the terms were just and liberal, without knowing the facts in the case. 
If the President will tell us the terms Mr. Slidell was authorized to offer, and 
what amount of money Mr. Trist was authorized to pay for the territory which 
he was instructed to demand, then we will judge for ourselves whether the 
terms were liberal or not. Until this is done, the President should cease to 
prate about his liberality and the obstinacy of Mexico. My own opinion is, 
that he has never yet offered such terms as he desired or expected Mexico to 
accept. Mr. Slidell, I have no doubt, was sent to Mexico, not to restore 
peace, but to bring on a war; or why, when they asked for a commissioner , did 
he send them an envoy extraordinary ? Why, when they asked for a fish, did 
he give them a serpent? But Mexico refused our terms of peace proposed by 
Mr. Trist. Well, Mr. Polk also refused their terms of peace proposed to Mr. 
Trist; and how can we tell who is most to blame, until we know what those terms 
were? Mexico has as much reason to say that we refused to make peace as 
we have to say that she refuses to make peace. 

Now, sir, I believe, and have always believed, if the President would offer 
Mexico just and fair terms of peace, we could have obtained it at any time. 
But the President has not desired peace; an apology for the conquest of the 
whole of Mexico has been sought, and this will be the motto of the party in 
Jthe next Presidential campaign, if peace is not made before. 

But as war now exists, our opponents appear to think that we have nothing 
'to do with the manner in which it was commenced, but our only business is to 
give all the assistance to the President he asks for, without reference to its be¬ 
ginning, whether right or wrong. But the manner of its commencement has 
every thing to do with our knowing how to terminate it justly. A jury will not 
be likely to render a very just verdict between two disputing neighbors without 
knowing who was the aggressor in the beginning. The President claims in¬ 
demnity for the expenses of the war upon the supposition that his statement 
Is true, “that Mexico invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon 
American soil.” Well, if this was true, his claim would be a just one. But 
in order to ascertain whether the claim is just, we must ascertain, by examin¬ 
ing the witnesses, whether his charge against Mexico, upon which he 'predicates 
his claim, is true. This I have done, and find by his own contradictory state¬ 
ments, as well as other testimony, that there is no truth in it. Hence his claim 
fails to be just. The evidence produced in this case clearly proves that the Pre¬ 
sident of the United States unnecessarily and unconstitutionally began this war; 
that he was the invader and aggressor. Consequently, he ought not only to pay 
our expenses of the war, but that of Mexico also. At any rate, that is my verdict. 

But our opponents have repeatedly asked us, What terms of peace do you 
propose? I answer, the same terms that we would have proposed before the 
war commenced; for I am sure that the war has entitled us to nothing but dis¬ 
grace, and of that w T e have our full share already. The great desert between 
the Nueces and the Rio Grande divides the people subject to the laws of Texas, 
from those of Mexico; beyond that we cannot go, without the consent of Mex¬ 
ico, unless we take and hold it by conquest—a thing I cannot consent to, un¬ 
less my mind should become so perverted as to justify robbery. And if we 
can raise as many millions of dollars, by taxing the Mexicans, as is represented 
by our Administration, there will be no difficulty in obtaining two or three 
millions from them to pay the indemnity due our citizens in money. As to 
territory, I desire not a foot beyond those who rebelled. Besides, there is no 
doubt but the desert is the best boundary we can have. It divides the waters 
of the Nueces, Red river, and Arkansas, from the Rio Grande! 

But the President says, in his last annual message, “The doctrine of no ter¬ 
ritory is the doctrine of no indemnity; and, if sanctioned, would be a public 
acknowledgment that our country was w r rong.” Not so. It would be a public 


13 


acknowledgment that our Administration was wrong —a fact which every 
body believes; and it would be proof positive that the country was right. The 
people compose the country, and they have not had a chance to be heard until 
now, and that only in this House. And what have the people said her el Why 
that this war was “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the Presi¬ 
dent.” The country is not bound to endorse every false statement made and 
unconstitutional act performed by the President, and thereby sink into the same 
degradation. He says it would be an acknowledgment, too, that the war was 
“unjust, and should be abandoned.” Exactly so. The people have said the 
war was “unjust;” and the conclusion, that therefore it should be abandoned,, 
is certainly correct. And the sure way to honor and peace is to undo that 
which has been unjustly done, as far as possible. Do this, and my word for 
it we will have peace in two months’ time. Bring back the army, therefore, 
to where it was when the President said it was on the western frontier of Texas 
and the eastern frontier of Mexico, and offer just and fair terms of peace, and 
you will have it. If the war was unjustly commenced by the President, it 
never can become just by prosecuting it. Two wrongs can never make one 
right. All the honor we have gained by this war is that which proceeds from 
our skill and bravery in the field of battle; and more than this we cannot ex¬ 
pect to gain in this unholy war; further brilliant victories will not likely be 
achieved. Upon the other hand, we have lost much of that honor which alone 
is worth having, which is the sure reward of justice, truth, and uprightness- 
Here, honor is the reflection of justice, without which you cannot be honor¬ 
able. What is true of individual honor, is also true of a nation’s honor. No 
honorable man believes that when an individual has commenced a career of 
injustice and wickedness, that honor requires he should persist in it, and that 
the only way for him to become an honorable man, is to continue to be dis¬ 
honorable. No clear-headed and right-hearted man has any such views of 
honor. Mr. Polk appears to think, that unless we obtain a certain portion of 
land from Mexico, we will be forever disgraced; but with it, our honors will 
be imperishable. What would be the state of society if an unprincipled bully, 
who would commence a war upon his neighbor for his land, and never stop till 
he had taken it from him, would be considered the most honorable man in the 
neighborhood? Nations, like individuals, when started in a dishonorable course, 
can only regain their honor by a return to righteousness. An unscrupulous 
bully may indeed be feared, but will be sure to be despised by all right-minded 
men. This may be our condition if we persist in our present course; but if 
we return to righteousness, we may be loved as well as feared by our neigh¬ 
bors. For it is as true as Holy Writ, that “righteousness exalteth a nation, 
but sin is a reproach to any people.” And it is indeed very unfortunate for 
this nation, that her rulers have such low and grovelling notions of honor, that 
it consists in a stubborn persistance in the repetition of false statements and 
wrong actions, in obtaining a few acres of land by force. 

That nation (as well as individual) is most honorable who has the most 
friends; and those will have the most friends who will do good to, and benefit, 
the most of mankind. Hence, our honor will be measured by the amount of 
good we do. If this, then, is a correct standard, I ask, who is benefited by 
this unholy war in which we are engaged? Is Mexico? Is any foreign nation? 
If they are , it is not intended by us; hence, we receive no honor for it. But 
I suppose no one will say they are. Well, then, if they are not, who are ben¬ 
efited? Are we? If you answer yes, I ask, who among us? Is it the farmer 
and mechanic, who have all the cost of this war to pay? Or, is it the poor sol¬ 
dier, who suffers all the severities of a campaign, and would freely, now, give 
a leg or an arm, if he could but return home to see his family and friends? Or, 
is it those who have been slain in the battle-field, or died with some lingering, 
fatal disease? Or, is it their unfortunate parents, wives, children, brothers,. 


14 


sisters, or friends, that are specially benefited by this disastrous war? If none 
of these are advantaged by it, I ask again, who are? The truth is, it is disad¬ 
vantageous to every one concerned, and advantageous to none. But, a few 
acres of miserable rocky mountains and barren plains are sought after by our 
rulers, to atone for all our loss of life and property, and to mend our broken 
honors, at the expense of justice and truth. Had we always rulers who would 
look upon national honor like that of individual honor, that could only be pre¬ 
served by a just and honorable course towards others, and tarnished only , by 
acts of injustice perpetrated against others, happy would it be for us. 

But, again: The patriotism of the Whigs has been challenged, because they 
will not sanction all the abominations of this Administration; because they will 
not say that falsehood is truth, and injustice is honorable. In the estimation 
of the President and his party, a patriot would seem to be one, who will be¬ 
lieve that the President can do no wrong, and that all the evils of this war 
are blessings, conferred by his special favor; that the man who most success¬ 
fully robs his neighbor gives the best evidence of his love to his family 
or country, but should he return to righteousness, he is disgraced forever; 
and he who condemns such conduct is an enemy to his family and country. 
I have been taught to believe that a patriot is one who loves his country; and 
the proof of his love is, to do all he can to preserve its honor, prosperity, and 
the happiness of the people. I now ask the candid of all parties, if they be¬ 
lieve that this nation is now more honorable, prosperous, and happy, than it 
would have been if this war had not existed? Or, rather, have we not lost 
much in every respect? We have lost ten thousand lives, and we have tens 
of thousands more suffering in the camp, besides the anxious care of their 
numerous friends at home. We have an enormous debt to pay, which will 
hang like an incubus upon this generation, if not the next too. And now, those 
who wish to put a stop to these evils are denounced as traitors to their country, 
whilst those who brought all these evils upon us, and wish to continue them, 
are called patriots. Save me from such patriotism. 

In his last annual message the President says, “To reject indemnity is to 
wage the war without a purpose, ora definite object.” Consequently, in¬ 
demnity is the only purpose or object for which the war was waged; for reject 
that, and he says “there is no other purpose or definite object.” By indemni¬ 
ty, he means territory. For, says he, “the doctrine of no territory is the 
doctrine of no indemnity.” He makes them identical. So the plain English 
of it is, that the war was waged, not for self-defence as was said, but for the 
conquest of territory. 

Another thing: We all believe that the conquest of the whole of Mexico is 
now the object of the President and his party. At any rate, if this Congress 
passes without it is stopt, that such will be the result. It is believed, too, not 
only by the Whigs, but by many Democrats, that if it is annexed it will prove 
destructive of our own Government. Believing this, what is the duty of every 
honest patriot? I can speak for myself upon this subject. I would ask the 
President to bring back the army from whence he unlawfully removed them. 
To do this I would afford every facility for the conveyance and comfort of the 
soldier. But if he would not do this, I would withhold appropriations from 
him; and then, if he would not do it, the responsibility would rest upon him; 
and I verily believe the people would sustain us in this course. As a candid 
man, and a patriot, I cannot do otherwise. Believing, as I do, that this war 
was unjustly begun by the President, and that, if continued, will result in the 
final conquest of the whole of Mexico, and the consequent ruin of my own 
country, 1 have no alternative left me but my constitutional right to withhold 
-appropriations. Why, sir, if you vote appropriations, the President, in his 
next annual message, will produce that vote as proof that you were in favor of 
the conquest of Mexico. Did he not, in his last message, produce the votes 


15 


for supplies, as proof positive that Congress was in favor of the conquest of a 
large part of Mexico? It seems to be his fixed purpose, on all occasions, to 
place his country in a false position, and take advantage of every circumstance 
to shift the responsibility of this war upon some one else, popular as it is. 
Well, I intend to give him no chance to make me shoulder the responsibility 
which he alone should bear, by drawing an erroneous inference from my vote. 

The people desire that an end should be put to this war; they have no inte¬ 
rest in its continuance. They well know they have all its burthens to bear, its 
battles to fight, and the expenses to pay, and receive nothing as an equivolent 
for it. And I am confident that there are none more anxious than the soldiers 
themselves to have an end put to it; for the life of a soldier is worse than that 
of a slave; they have some cruel masters over them. Who that is a democrat, 
can wish to see from fifty to one hundred thousand of his fellow-citizens under 
military law, which is the most despotic government in the world? There may 
be a few military officers who love to rule—get high salaries, and are too lazy 
to work—who wish the war continued For the sake of such, I would desire 
it closed, if for no other reason. 

But our President is such a pure democrat, that he cannot bear the idea for 
Mexico to govern herself as she sees fit. No; but we must force her, con¬ 
trary to her will, under our laws; and she must have the benefit of free insti¬ 
tutions! Our fathers thought and said, that mankind had a right to govern 
themselves. For this purpose,'to obtain this right, they fought through seas 
of blood. Little did they suppose that at this early day we would oppose an¬ 
other nation in exercising that right. If Mexico chooses to establish an aris¬ 
tocracy, or even a monarchy, it is none of our business. It is the height of 
despotism in us to interfere. We claim that right. And if we choose to establish a 
monarchy, whose business would it be but our own? But the spirit that desires to 
compel Mexico to submit to our laws, against her will, is the basest despotism. 
It is the very spirit which actuated despots of the old world, and caused the many 
martyrdoms of good and great men, whose butcheries stain the pages of history; 
and if it is tolerated here, our own liberties will not be safe many years. 

Another superiority is set up for us. We are of high blood. Yes, of the 
Anglo-Saxon race—and therefore we ought to rule. It is very common to hear 
a man, who knows himself to be a scoundrel, speaking of his honorable ances 
try, and of the high blood from which he has descended. I never heard an 
honorable man, who had personal merits, boast of his ancestry in my life. In¬ 
deed, it is the very essence of villany and despotism. By looking at the 
course pursued, and the doctrines advocated by the Administration and its 
party, it must be apparent to all, that a spirit of tyranny, despotism, and base 
injustice is abroad in the land to a fearful extent, and if not checked soon, will 
sweep over the whole land, and bury our boasted institutions beneath its cor¬ 
rupting influence, from whence we can never recover. But it is our “destiny 
to overrun all the North American continent.’’ Yes, we, I presume, will be 
permitted to make it our destiny , if we choose. But if we do, it will be our 
destiny to go to destruction, whether we choose or not. It is a decree of Hea¬ 
ven, that “when the wicked bear rule, the land mourneth;” and as nations, 
as such, cannot be punished in the world to come, we have seen in the world’s 
history that they are punished in this world. And as all other nations have, 
sooner or later, been punished for their injustice and wickedness, it is but rea¬ 
sonable to suppose that we will share the same fate. Indeed, if the principles 
which are sought to be established by our rulers are established, they of them¬ 
selves would prove destructive to our own Government; and he who supports 
them is the worst enemy to his own country, whether he intends it or not. 

But the sovereign, or sovereigns, of a nation, in a political point of view, 
“can do no wrong,” because not responsible to any other earthly power. The 
sovereigns of this country are the people; and if they will only keep this in 



16 


•view, and not give it up to our self-styled sovereign, they may yet save our 
country from entire destruction. There is now, and has been for some years 
past, party leaders in this Government who have acted upon the principle, that 
the President “could do no wrong.” They have justified every act , and vindica¬ 
ted every word he has said, no matter how ridiculous or absurd, and are ready 
to pour out all their anathemas upon the heads of those who attempt to doubt 
his infallibility. Against this the people have, and will, protest. 

I do not expect to vote for this bill. In the present state of affairs, I do not 
expect either to vote to borrow, nor to appropriate, money for the further pros¬ 
ecution of this ungodly war. It was conceived in sin, and brought forth in 
iniquity, and I fear its end will be destruction. And in my opinion, now is the 
time to stop the war, or never. We yet have power to withhold appropria¬ 
tions. This I view as being the only remedy left us, so far as this House is 
concerned. Our fathers, in framing the Constitution, wisely divided the sword 
and the purse—as they constitute the whole power of the nation. When divi¬ 
ded, they are harmless. The Executive has the power of the sword; and 
that, at this time, when oar forces in the army and navy is from fifty to a 
hundred thousand men, all under the command of the Executive, is indeed a 
very great power; and that, we have said, is now engaged in an unjust cause; 
and we are now asked to give up the remaining power of the nation, namely, 
the purse, into the same hands, and unite the whole strength of the nation in 
the hands of one man, who we believe will use it to the great injury, if not to 
the entire destruction, of our Government. Can we, as patriots, do this? I 
cannot, and will not. We have no more right to give up our part of the power 
into the hands of the Executive, than he has to give up his part into our hands. 
Let him, therefore, do it. 

But I am told that the Government is in debt, and this money is wanted to 
pay that debt. Yes, and while we are borrowing money to pay that debt, the 
Government is incurring another debt to compel us to pay. And so we will 
always want money —only to pay the debt. Let the Government pay this 
debt with the current income, and call our army out of the field, and then I 
am ready to aid in paying the debts. But, as it now is, there is no end to the 
accumulation of debt. Let the Administration cease to contract debts, and, as 
far as I can, I will aid in paying those which are already incurred. 

But we are asked if we would starve the soldiers to death. I answer, no; I 
would withhold appropriations in order to save their lives. The President 
would not dare to keep them there without subsistence; for he has the power 
to call them away—we have not. And I am sure we would receive ten thou¬ 
sand thanks from the soldiers themselves, and be doubly thanked by their 
friends at home, if we would, by any means, compel the President to bring 
them away. Such of them as would prefer staying there, rather than return 
to their wives and children, ought not to be fed, at home or abroad; and this 
Government could do well without them. But I presume none such could be 
found, but all would be glad to hear the welcome news. It is for the good of 
the soldier—yea, for the good of every body concerned—that I would, by 
some means, bring this war to a close. 

If the army was composed of my own sons I would compel the President, 
by withholding appropriations, if nothing else would do, to bring them home, 
and think I was doing them a service that would entitle me to their lasting 
gratitude. Or, if the President will institute a commission of one or more hon¬ 
orable men to Mexico to offer her such terms of peace as should have been of¬ 
fered before the war commenced, I, for one, am willing to appropriate all the 
money necessary to keep our army in statu quo until the result is known. But 
to vote for the appropriation of money to prosecute the war to the final subju¬ 
gation and conquest of Mexico, I never will. Nor can I think that any member of 
this House will be supported by a just and honorable constituency in doing so. 

t W46 ' 

































^ * o°* v ° 0 ,** ^ 


K o V 
\°Xi 


*±0* 


\>* <l 


r oK 




t 0 **. 


"W 


'^t. .vik^s* * hT "■ * *&y/ns3r? v <»*, '•.^Lirejss&.'v ^ 

... V-^V v^v r 


°c 



*tf. • 

*.>,A •> 



^ 0 « 


»y A 


' v ~\f> *?’ © r y 

.** j 1 \. : JK»* : : JS|p. ; <?% 

••»* V, A <!“_, *-•..*' a* ^b ’■<..< 

0 C VI* * O * * ' • « Q V ' c, 0 * ® ♦ ^O v < 

o/» * 

^ o„?viff*S .0' ^ '>W.'° °V ‘W _o • ^ 

o *#,n* *0 ^ &v "o *#Tt* aO*^ ^ 

C\. aV »*/,*'♦ ^ v % * ,#0 * **C» .0^ |»" * 

\ % J> \jflfer* ■% *« -Wa" V ^ .*■ 

: '°Wmw: #*% : -llir.‘ -. 

• * * * tCr c>. VtvT* A ^ 0 om$* 



j- 0 ^ 




* 0v b. 



"oK 



**0< 







**- **^* y v. v ’ ,.' *°°... v*w y i 

V .’•«>-. g> *9 *•*,*% \> v *»•<>, 

« t 4r . yfltv . > ,v 

, _ ¥ya __ HW , V*V 

/ /\ \^gK: ^ v % /\ 

C° °o ,*r ^ c 0 ^ °o 

^o* ^o v 4, V- o< '’o^ 




• • S 


'b V 


♦ O A. ''‘^•Hvvvsy ' &► * ^r^vy/^cr + 

*•■"•’f° V'*V>'‘v'vrrV* 0 , 

- - i ♦£ a t> ♦ ,-y a v > A ^ ^v. 

° ^rv * ^<WDr^ • V<A A^* ♦ rf(\ Sy /K° ^ * 

o 'J'C. ' o ^ ^s-A V - fJvvV^S\/vl- O v0» 




./‘S" * 

; aV^. ; 

*...•* A <b ^ ’b. -•TXT*’ A 

^-f c° °o 





r V 

<^ *.^* A° % '•*‘>° & C 

* 1 C*. AV »!,()»/♦ ^ V 

•. , v .ViVv. v a 4 .vafei'. ts. *v 

^ ’^Sp* U -®S : ?£ V 











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































